Connecticut, unlike other states, has no law against sex offenders close to schools

According to a report issued by the state's Office of Legislative Research three years ago, 21 states have adopted what are called residency requirements for convicted sex offenders, limiting where those offenders can live.

Connecticut is not one of those states.

The state has examined the problem. In 2007, State Rep. Mike Lawlor touted reforms to the sex offender registry, including a "risk assessment" board that would rank offenders. To date, those changes, including a residency requirement, have not been instituted.

That same report, written by the OLR's Sandra Norman-Eady, points out that not only have 21 states instituted residency requirements, but 400 local governments have as well.

Advertisement

"Danbury is the only city in this state known to have an ordinance restricting sex offenders' residency. The ordinance prohibits sex offenders from entering a public park, playground, recreation center, bathing beach, swimming pool, sports field, or sports facility," the report reads.

Most residency requirements place restrictions on the distance that a convicted sex offender may live from a place where children congregate. In California, for example, the law stipulates that, "A sexually violent predator or a serious paroled sex offender cannot live within one-fourth of a mile of a school, and high-risk paroled sex offenders cannot live within one-half mile of a school, daycare center, or place where children congregate."

On the other end of the spectrum is Illinois where a child sex offender may not live within 500 feet of a school or school property. It should be noted that Northeast states in general do not have residency requirements. Neither New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire nor Rhode Island have state laws restricting where a convicted sex offender may reside. States with known local ordinances include California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

But how does Torrington stack up? In January, the state of Connecticut released the latest tallies and Torrington, perhaps because it is the most populous community in the region, also had the highest number of sex offenders.

With 69 registered sex offenders in Torrington, a city of 36,000, 0.19 percent of the population are sex offenders. In Winsted, a town of 10,000, there are 18 sex offenders, which means that 0.18 percent of the town is comprised of registered sex offenders. By contrast, Litchfield, a town of 8,500, has five sex offenders, or 0.05 of the total population.

As Lt. Mike Emanuel of the Torrington Police Department noted, "You can't really compare different cities because you have to consider that sex offenders can move to other towns."

But, once in Torrington, how close do convicted sex offenders live to local schools?

By far, Vogel-Wetmore Elementary School has the most registered sex offenders living within a close proximity. Nine registered sex offenders live within a quarter mile, or 1,300 feet, of the school.

Next on the list is Southwest School -- three registered sex offenders live within a quarter mile.

There are two registered sex offenders living within a quarter mile of Forbes Elementary School, one within a quarter mile of Torrington High School and none within the same distance from Torrington Middle School, East School and Torringford School.

Those numbers increase dramatically if the distance is increased to one-half mile, or 2,600 feet.

When asked if the issue had been addressed in the state legislature, Sen. Andrew Roraback said that, to his knowledge, it had not.

"It probably ought to be," he said. "There are a lot of challenges to maintaining the residency requirement."

Similar laws have been challenged in other states, but largely unsuccessfully. "Opponents argue that these restrictions have a number of unintended consequences," Norman-Eady wrote for the OLR. "For example, they isolate offenders, often forcing them to live in rural areas that lack jobs, transportation, housing, and treatment; create homelessness, making it difficult for law enforcement officers to track offenders; cause offenders to go underground and not update registration information; and can prevent offenders from residing with supportive family members who live in the restricted areas."

"This population can often be a transient population," Roraback said.

As for legal opposition, Norman-Eady wrote that the federal constitution does not "include a right to live where one chooses," and that "residency restrictions are rationally related to states' legitimate interests in protecting children from harm."

Roraback agrees. "The public policy goals are to protect possible future victims," he said. That was the reason 12 years ago for passing Megan's law, the regulation that requires convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with public safety offices.